Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Robert Guthrie, a former employee of Rainbow Fencing Inc. (RFI), filed a lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and statutory damages for RFI's failure to provide wage notices and wage statements as required by New York law. Guthrie worked as a welder for RFI from 2014 to 2021 and claimed he was not paid for overtime hours. The district court entered a default judgment for the unpaid wages but dismissed Guthrie's claim for statutory damages, ruling that he lacked standing because he did not allege an injury-in-fact resulting from the failure to provide the required notices and statements.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially reviewed the case. The court granted a default judgment for Guthrie's unpaid wages but dismissed his claim for statutory damages due to lack of standing. The court concluded that Guthrie did not allege a concrete injury-in-fact caused by the absence of wage notices and statements, which is necessary to meet the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Guthrie lacked standing to pursue statutory damages. The appellate court held that a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury-in-fact resulting from the statutory violation to have standing. Guthrie's general claims about potential harms did not suffice, as he failed to link these potential harms to any actual injury he experienced. Therefore, the court concluded that Guthrie did not meet the requirements for Article III standing and affirmed the dismissal of his claim for statutory damages. View "Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc." on Justia Law

Catalina Estillado died from injuries sustained in a workplace accident at ABC Polymer Industries, LLC. Her spouse, Crescencio Pablo, filed a wrongful-death claim against her coworkers, Dean Leader and William Durall, alleging their willful conduct caused her death by removing a safety guard from the machine involved. The Jefferson Circuit Court found in favor of Pablo, awarding $3 million in damages. Leader and Durall appealed.The circuit court determined that the machine was originally manufactured with a safety gate interlocked with a limit switch, which was later removed. The court concluded that Durall had effectively "removed" the safety device by not reinstalling it and by training employees to bypass it. The court also found that Durall knew injury was likely from this removal and that the removal was not part of a modification that rendered the safety device unnecessary.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found that while the machine was originally manufactured with the safety device, there was no evidence that Durall knew the safety gate should be interlocked with a limit switch when he inspected and installed the machine. The court also noted that instructing employees to bypass a safety device does not equate to its removal under § 25-5-11(c)(2), referencing the precedent set in Williams v. Price. Additionally, Durall had left ABC Polymer before Estillado was hired and did not train her.The court concluded that Pablo failed to prove Durall willfully and intentionally removed the safety device. Consequently, the judgment against Durall was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The appeal by Leader was dismissed due to his bankruptcy discharge. View "Leader v. Pablo" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Metro Man IV, LLC, which operates a nursing home, faced a severe staff shortage due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, the company implemented temporary hazard pay and hired non-certified nursing aides. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that while the emergency excused Metro Man from initially bargaining with the union, the company failed to bargain with the union regarding the effects of these unilateral decisions once the emergency subsided.An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Metro Man violated the National Labor Relations Act by not bargaining with the union before increasing and then decreasing wages and hiring non-certified aides. The ALJ ordered Metro Man to pay back wages but did not require reinstating the wage increase. The NLRB amended this order, agreeing that the exigent circumstances excused initial bargaining but still required Metro Man to notify and bargain with the union about the changes and their effects once the emergency ended. The NLRB ordered Metro Man to reinstate the wage increase and to bargain with the union before making future changes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the implementation and rescission of the hazard pay were part of a single decision, excused by the exigent circumstances of COVID-19, and thus not subject to separate bargaining obligations. However, the court upheld the NLRB's finding that Metro Man failed to engage in effects-bargaining regarding the hiring of non-certified aides. The court affirmed the NLRB's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "NLRB v. Metro Man IV, LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph Mayor, a worker injured in December 2013 while employed by Ross Valley Sanitation District, was awarded total permanent disability by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 2, 2023. Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) on March 23, 2023. The Board did not act on the petition within the 60-day period mandated by former section 5909 of the Labor Code, which stated that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied if not acted upon within 60 days of filing.The Board issued an order granting Ross Valley’s petition for reconsideration on August 14, 2023, 144 days after the petition was filed. Mayor requested a hearing to enforce the WCJ’s award and subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the Board lost jurisdiction over the matter 60 days after the petition was filed. The Board issued a revised order on February 2, 2024, rescinding the WCJ’s award and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, citing an administrative irregularity that delayed the Board’s receipt of the petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Mayor and the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction. The court held that former section 5909 was mandatory and that the Board’s failure to act within the 60-day period resulted in the petition being denied by operation of law. Consequently, the court granted Mayor’s petition and issued a writ of mandate directing the Board to rescind its orders granting reconsideration and to reinstate the WCJ’s award of permanent disability. View "Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Erica Barrett and other employees of O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. alleged that the company’s 401(k) plan managers breached their fiduciary duty by imposing high recordkeeping expenses and inflated expense ratios on the plan, resulting in less money for the participants. They claimed that these high costs were due to either incompetence or laziness on the part of the plan managers.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide meaningful benchmarks to support their claim that the plan’s fees were excessive. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not adequately compare the costs of O’Reilly’s plan with those of similar plans offering the same services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs did not provide meaningful benchmarks to show that the plan’s fees were excessive. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ comparisons were flawed because they did not account for the different services included in the fees of the comparator plans. Additionally, the court found that aggregate data from the Investment Company Institute was insufficient to establish a plausible claim of mismanagement. The court also dismissed the failure-to-monitor claim against O’Reilly and its board of directors, as it was derivative of the primary claim. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as the plaintiffs did not formally request leave to amend their complaint. View "Barrett v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Guillermo Gray, sued Killick Group, L.L.C. for wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Gray, an experienced welding and coding inspector, performed inspection services for Killick on a project-by-project basis through his own company, Veritas Inspectors, Inc. He used his own equipment and submitted invoices under his business name. In a previous criminal court proceeding, Gray had sworn that he was self-employed to obtain an essential-need license after a DWI conviction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Killick, holding that Gray was judicially estopped from claiming employee status under the FLSA due to his prior sworn statement of being self-employed. The court also dismissed Gray’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. Gray appealed, seeking reversal only on the FLSA claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court reviewed the use of judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion and found that Gray’s previous self-employed statement was inconsistent with his current claim of being an employee. However, the court chose to resolve the appeal by determining whether Gray was an employee under the FLSA. Applying the economic-realities test, the court concluded that Gray was an independent contractor. The court considered factors such as Gray’s control over his work, his investment in his business, his ability to profit, the skill required for his job, and the project-based nature of his work. All factors supported the conclusion that Gray was not economically dependent on Killick and was thus an independent contractor, not an employee under the FLSA. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Killick. View "Gray v. Killick Group" on Justia Law

Meng Huang, a former Ph.D. student at The Ohio State University (OSU), alleged that her advisor, Professor Giorgio Rizzoni, sexually harassed and assaulted her during her studies. Huang filed a lawsuit against OSU and Rizzoni, claiming Title VII quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation against OSU, and a due process violation against Rizzoni under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to OSU on Huang’s Title VII claims, concluding she was not an "employee" under Title VII until August 2017. The court also ruled that Huang’s retaliation claim failed because her first protected activity occurred after the alleged adverse actions. Huang’s § 1983 claim against Rizzoni proceeded to trial, where the court trifurcated the trial and excluded evidence of Rizzoni’s alleged manipulation and coercion. The jury found in favor of Rizzoni.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in determining Huang was not an employee under Title VII before August 2017, as her research work and the control Rizzoni exerted over her indicated an employment relationship. The court also held that Huang’s resistance to Rizzoni’s advances constituted protected activity under Title VII, and she presented sufficient evidence of adverse employment actions linked to her resistance.The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment on Huang’s Title VII claims, vacated the trial verdict in favor of Rizzoni on the § 1983 claim, and remanded for a new trial. The court emphasized that the district court’s exclusion of relevant evidence regarding Rizzoni’s power and manipulation was an abuse of discretion, which prejudiced Huang’s ability to present her case. View "Huang v. Ohio State University" on Justia Law

Raymond Black, a skilled mechanic at Swift Pork Company, was responsible for operating and fixing the loin-puller machine. He frequently took FMLA leave to care for his wife, who had severe cardiovascular disease. After returning to work from a bout of pneumonia, Black was reassigned to a different task, which led to a dispute with his supervisor. Black requested vacation time, which was denied, and then opted for FMLA leave to care for his sick wife. He was subsequently fired after a meeting with the human-resources director and plant manager.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of Swift Pork Company on both of Black's FMLA claims—interference and discrimination. Black then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question on whether Black's FMLA leave was medically necessary and whether Swift interfered with his FMLA rights by not crediting his absences and firing him. Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment on the interference claim and remanded it for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the discrimination claim. The court concluded that there was no evidence that Swift fired Black because he took FMLA leave, especially given his extensive history of taking FMLA leave without repercussions. Negative comments from supervisors who did not make the termination decision were insufficient to establish a discriminatory motive.In summary, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the interference claim but affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim. View "Black v. Swift Pork Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (the union), and the School Committee of Boston (the committee). The union alleged that the committee failed to hire eighteen "cluster" paraprofessional substitutes as required by their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator sustained the union's grievance in July 2020 and ordered the committee to comply with the hiring requirement. The committee did not seek to vacate or modify the award. Nineteen months later, the union sought judicial confirmation of the arbitration award, which the committee opposed, claiming substantial compliance.In the Superior Court, the union filed a complaint to confirm the arbitration award and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The committee responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Superior Court judge granted the committee's motion to dismiss and denied the union's motion, reasoning that there was no statutory right to confirmation when no dispute was alleged.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that under General Laws c. 150C, § 10, the Superior Court is required to confirm an arbitration award upon application by a party unless a timely motion to vacate or modify the award has been made. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and mandatory, stating that the Superior Court "shall" confirm the award if no such motion is pending. The court rejected the committee's argument that confirmation should be discretionary and noted that the purpose of § 10 is to enforce arbitration awards.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's order, granting the committee's motion to dismiss and denying the union's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed. View "Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. School Committee of Boston" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Kimberly Strable, who was under 18, inquired about a managerial position at Arby’s in Great Falls but was told she could not apply due to her age. Strable filed an age discrimination claim with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB), which issued a reasonable cause determination. The parties entered into a conciliation process, and Strable’s attorney and Arby’s attorney reached an agreement in principle for a $25,000 settlement, subject to a mutually agreeable settlement agreement. However, the parties did not finalize or sign the draft conciliation agreement, which included affirmative relief provisions required by the HRB.The First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granted summary judgment in favor of Arby’s, finding that no enforceable contract existed between the parties. The court noted that the negotiations were part of an ongoing HRB case and that Arby’s had not consented to the affirmative relief provisions, which were essential terms of the conciliation agreement.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The court held that the essential element of consent was lacking because the parties had not agreed on all essential terms, including the HRB’s affirmative relief provisions. The court emphasized that a binding contract requires mutual consent on all essential terms, and in this case, Arby’s could not consent to terms it was unaware of. Therefore, the court concluded that no enforceable contract existed, and summary judgment in favor of Arby’s was appropriate. View "Strable v. Carisch" on Justia Law